Westphalian sovereignty

1
Westphalian sovereignty
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role for
external agents in domestic structures.
Scholars of international relations have identified the modern, Western originated, international system of states,
multinational corporations, and organizations, as having begun at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Both the basis
and the conclusion of this view have been attacked by someWikipedia:Avoid weasel words revisionist academics
and politicians, with revisionists questioning the significance of the Peace, and some commentators and politicians
attacking the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states.
Traditional view
Adherents to the concept of a Westphalian system refer to the Peace of Westphalia signed in 1648 which ended the
Thirty Years' War, in which the major European countries at the time (the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France,
Sweden and the Dutch Republic) agreed to respect the principle of territorial integrity. In the Westphalian system,
the national interests and goals of states (and later nation-states) were widely assumed to go beyond those of any
citizen or any ruler. States became the primary institutional agents in an interstate system of relations. The Peace of
Westphalia is said to have ended attempts to impose supranational authority on European states. The "Westphalian"
doctrine of states as independent agents was bolstered by the rise in 19th century thought of nationalism, under
which legitimate states were assumed to correspond to nationsgroups of people united by language and culture.
The Westphalian system reached its peak in the late 19th century. Although practical considerations still led
powerful states to seek to influence the affairs of others, forcible intervention by one country in the domestic affairs
of another was less frequent between 1850 and 1900 than in most previous and subsequent
periods.
[1]
Wikipedia:Disputed statement
The Peace of Westphalia is important in modern international relations theory, and is often defined as the beginning
of the international system with which the discipline deals.
[2][3]
International relations theorists have identified several key principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which explain the
Peace's significance and its impact on the world today:
1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2. 2. The principle of legal equality between states
3. 3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state
These principles are shared by the "realist" international relations paradigm today, which explains why the system of
states is referred to as "The Westphalian System".
Both the idea of Westphalian sovereignty and its applicability in practice have been questioned from the mid-20th
century onwards from a variety of viewpoints. Much of the debate has turned on the ideas of internationalism and
globalization which, in various interpretations, appear to conflict with Westphalian sovereignty.
Modern views on the Westphalian system
The Westphalian system is used as a shorthand by academics to describe the system of states which make up the
world today.
[4]
In 1998, at a Symposium on the Continuing Political Relevance of the Peace of Westphalia, the then NATO
Secretary-General Javier Solana said that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to
the original Westphalian order" and levied a criticism that "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the
principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not
integration."
Westphalian sovereignty
2
In 2000, Germany's Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his Humboldt Speech,
which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete: "The core of the concept of
Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic
ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took
the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational
European institutions."
In the aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, Lewis Atiyyatullah, who claims to represent the terrorist
network al-Qaeda, declared that "the international system built up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will
collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state".
It has also been claimed that globalization is bringing an evolution of the international system past the sovereign
Westphalian state.
Benedict Anderson refers to putative nations as "imagined communities."
Others speak favorably of the Westphalian state, notably European nationalists and American paleoconservative Pat
Buchanan. Some such supporters of the Westphalian state oppose socialism and some forms of capitalism for
undermining the nation state. A major theme of Buchanan's political career, for example, has been attacking
globalization, critical theory, neoconservatism, and other philosophies he considers detrimental to today's Western
nations.
Globalization and Westphalian sovereignty
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the emerging literature on globalization focused primarily on the erosion of
interdependence sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty. Much of this literature was primarily concerned to
criticize realist models of international politics in which the Westphalian notion of the state as a unitary agent are
taken as axiomatic (Camilleri and Falk 1992).
The European Union concept of shared sovereignty is also somewhat contrary to historical views of Westphalian
sovereignty, as it provides for external agents to interfere in nations' internal affairs.
In a 2008 article Phil Williams links the rise of terrorism and other violent non-state actors (VNSAs), which pose a
threat to the Westphalian sovereignty of the state, to globalization.
[5]
Intervention
Military intervention
Since the late 20th century, the idea of Westphalian sovereignty has been brought into further question by a range of
actual and proposed military interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Crimea, Iraq and Sudan, among
others.
Humanitarian intervention
Interventions such as in Cambodia by Vietnam (the Cambodian Vietnamese War) or in Bangladesh (then a part of
Pakistan) by India (the Bangladesh Liberation War and the Pakistan-initiated Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 within it)
had a questionable or weak basis in international law, but were carried out on the premise that they constituted
humanitarian intervention aimed at preventing genocide, large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing. In the East
Pakistan/ Bangladesh case, India's justification was that it acted in self-defence rather than for humanitarian purposes
per se, it argued that such was the scale of refugee flows from East Pakistan to India, it threatened internal stability
of India, and so was justified in intervening in East Bengal to address the root cause of the threat to India.
However, there is debate about whether other recent infringements of state sovereignty, such as in Kosovo (then a
part of Serbia and Montenegro) by NATO (the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia) and subsequent de facto
Westphalian sovereignty
3
partitioning of Kosovo out of Serbia, in Iraq by the United States and a few other allies such as the United Kingdom
(the 2003 Iraq War), in Georgia by Russia (the 2008 South Ossetia war), or in Libya by NATO (the 2011 Libyan
civil war), also reflected these higher principles or whether the real justification was simply the promotion of
political and economic interests.
A new notion of contingent sovereignty seems to be emerging, but it has not yet reached the point of international
legitimacy. Neoconservatism in particular has developed this line of thinking further, asserting that a lack of
democracy may foreshadow future humanitarian crises, or that democracy itself constitutes a human right, and
therefore nation states not respecting democratic principles open themselves up to just war by other countries.
However, proponents of this theory have been accused of being concerned about democracy, human rights and
humanitarian crises, only in countries where American global dominance is challenged, such as the former
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, Belarus, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, etc., while hypocritically ignoring
the same issues in other countries friendlier to the United States, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Georgia, and Colombia.
Failed states
A further criticism of Westphalian sovereignty arises in relation to allegedly failed states, of which Afghanistan
(before the 2001 US-led invasion) is often considered an example.
[6]
In this case, it is argued that no sovereignty
exists and that international intervention is justified on humanitarian grounds and by the threats posed by failed states
to neighboring countries and the world as a whole.
Some of the recent debate over Somalia is also being cast in these same terms.
Further reading
Camilleri, J. and Falk, J. (1992), The End of Sovereignty?: The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmenting World,
Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
Leurdijk, J. (1986), Intervention in International Politics, Eisma BV, Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
Phil Williams: Violent Non-State Actors and National and International Security
[7]
, ISN, 2008.
References
[1] [1] Leurdijk, 1986
[2] [2] Here: p. 251.
[3] Jackson, R.H.; P. Owens (2005) "The Evolution of World Society" in: John Baylis; Steve Smith (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics:
An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 53. ISBN 1-56584-727-X.
[4] [4] Osiander, p. 251.
[5] http:/ / se2. isn. ch/ serviceengine/ FileContent?serviceID=ISFPub& fileid=8EEBA9FE-478E-EA2C-AA15-32FC9A59434A& lng=en
[6] The Washington Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 3, 2002 "The new nature of nationstate failure" Robert I. Rotbergab
[7] http:/ / se2. isn. ch/ serviceengine/ FileContent?serviceID=ISFPub& fileid=8EEBA9FE-478E-EA2C-AA15-32FC9A59434A& lng=en
Article Sources and Contributors
4
Article Sources and Contributors
Westphalian sovereignty Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=598430084 Contributors: Andy Dingley, Antigravityece, Athaenara, Ballofstring, BaruMonkey, BigrTex,
Blue-Haired Lawyer, Boat v, Bobrayner, Bwithh, Chrism, Coleacanth, David stinson, DonaldRichardSands, DuncanBCS, Ehrenkater, Esrever, ForestAngel, Fraggle81, HansHermans, Hemlock
Martinis, Historicist, Hmains, Ipatrol, JLaTondre, Jish, John Quiggin, Joriki, Joseph Solis in Australia, Jsp722, Kintetsubuffalo, Lic812, Liliana Dioguardi, M2Ys4U, Mais oui!, Mdotley,
Meesher, Mindbuilder, Mirrormundo, Mogism, Mwmoretti, NATO.Caliber, Nagle, Natalie Erin, Nutiketaiel, PBS, Pathoschild, Phunting, Piast93, Pmsyyz, Polylerus, RandomCritic, Rjwilmsi,
Ronark, Rwalker, Sandstein, Sasoriza, Sbabones, Serge925, Tabletop, TallNapoleon, Tempshill, The Rambling Man, Vapour, Will Beback, Woohookitty, Wtmitchell, Yabti, 90 anonymous edits
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/